Online Student Success
Literature Review on Improving Student Success among Underprepared Online Students in
Higher Education
Christen Smith
EADM 607
Professor Greer
March 17, 2015
1
Online Student Success
Introduction
Online education in higher education has been heralded as the answer to student access,
yet success and retention of online learners continues to be cause for concern despite the steady
increase in online programs. President Obama has cited distance education as a primary means
for increasing the number of college graduates, particularly students of color, and reducing the
cost of education in the United States (Sturgis, 2012). In 2014, the total number of reported
students in Higher Education taking at least one online class was reported to be 7.1 million; that
is 33.5 % of the total number of college and university students (Allen & Seaman, 2014). While
there is no central data collection on student success and retention rates in higher education
throughout the US, the largest academic organization in higher education, the California
Community College (CCC) system, has tracked the disparity between traditional and distance
education classes of 2.1 million students. The CCC Chancellor’s office reports that online
students are 8.1% less likely to complete online classes and 11% less likely to succeed with a
grade of C or better if they do finish (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office,
2013). Online programs may be providing better access to college classes, but emphasis needs to
be on increasing graduation rates by studying causes for the achievement gap between face-to-
face and online learners.
Despite the explosion in online higher education programs, very little research has been
done to study student success of underprepared students in online higher education. While
hundreds of studies have focused on online learning student success in general, the majority of
those studies have examined the roles of learning styles, age, gender, and motivation (Britto &
Rush, 2013; Harrell, 2008; Baxter, 2012; Simpson, 2013). Only a handful of studies have
expressly grappled with the success or retention of underprepared students. This is alarming
2
Online Student Success
given that it is estimated that one third of all incoming freshman require at least one
developmental course in math, English, reading, or ESL (Bettinger & Long, 2009). As colleges
and universities do attempt to broaden educational access, it is likely that the number of remedial
students and second language learners enrolled in college will increase (Daiek, Dixon, & Talbert,
2012; SRI International, 2002). For this reason, it is paramount that schools address the online
learning needs of underprepared students. If colleges and universities are going to increase
online offerings, researchers and institutions must view distance education as more than just a
tool for accessibility and cost savings and instead search for means to increase student learning
and completion.
Fortunately, research of ESL and underprepared students in online classes shows that
online education can be potentially beneficial (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman,
2004; Dawson, 2001; Kaupp, 2012; Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Simpson, 2006; Stewart, &
Scappaticci, 2005; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). Studies show that due to the increased
volume of writing, online activities can improve writing of developmental students (Al-Jarf,
2002; Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). Studies also suggest that
online learning can provide more individualized learning to better meet the learning needs of
remedial students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, Brown, & Hickman, 2004; Mongillo, & Wilder,
2012; Simpson, 2006). Studies of online learning have also concluded that strong student-
centered learning environments can be established through online collaboration, and that these
connections may lead to better retention (Dawson, 2001; Kaupp, 2012; Stewart, & Scappaticci,
2005). The purpose of this literature review is to analyze how instructors and educational
institutions can improve student success for underprepared online students. An analysis of
literature will study both retention and success of underprepared students in fully online classes
3
Online Student Success
and hybrid classes. Higher passing rates and improved retention of underprepared online
students will be studied; specifically, whether online instruction can be equally or even more
beneficial than traditional face-to-face instruction; identification of at-risk characteristics and
successful student traits and strategies; and descriptions of best practices in instructional design
will be analyzed. The goal of this investigation is to determine best practices that can be
established in policies and institutional practices mindful of the learning needs of underprepared
students in online courses.
Method
This literature review is based on a search of peer reviewed journals and conference
papers. A combination of the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) and EBSCO
Informational Services was used to locate the articles. Searching was started by combining an
extensive variety of phrases created from the following list of topics: underprepared, pre-
collegiate, at-risk, basic skills, developmental, remedial, ESL, ELL, literacy, reading, writing,
math, college, higher education, online, hybrid, computer, retention, success, tutoring,
assessment, readiness. In this study, underprepared students will include any college or
university student who assesses at a pre-collegiate level in math, reading, English, and/or ESL.
Also, an ancestral study of references was used to locate additional studies. These search
methods produced a total of 12 studies: nine peer reviewed journal articles and three studies
presented at conferences (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter, & Hickman, 2004; Colorado, & Eberle,
20010; Dawson, 2010; Fair, & Wickersham, 2012; Kaupp, 2012; Menager-Beeley, 2001;
Mongillo, & Wilder, 2012; Simpson, 2006; Stewart, & Scappaticci, 2005; Yukselturk, & Bulut,
2007; Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgerald, 2006). Besides these studies, a number of reports, articles,
4
Online Student Success
and other studies were used for background information on higher education, underprepared
students, and online education.
Because of the limited number of studies that focus on student success of underprepared
students in online classes, a broad range of related subtopics dealing with both the online student
characteristics and online teaching practices were included in order to provide a comprehensive
view of the issues as they relate to underprepared students. Studies were selected that mostly
addressed online learners in higher education: seven studies of university students, four studies
of community college students, and one study of elementary school children. Of the 12 studies,
an examination of outcomes were divided: four studies reviewed final grades, one study only
looked at course completion, six studies focused on both grades and course completion, and three
of those studies additionally analyzed retention in subsequent semesters. The design of these
studies included two qualitative, four quantitative, six mixed-methods studies. It should be noted
that the majority of studies did not indicate how courses had been selected; institution-wide
studies were given more credibility. Only studies that included original research were included.
Articles were annotated and from those notes, outlines were created. The studies were
first analyzed for validity based on size. Because there were so few studies on this subject
matter, all studies with at least one class section were included. Next, studies were evaluated for
whether the study instruments would bias the results. Third, data analysis was analyzed to
determine whether the studies made correlations between online or hybrid and face-to-face
students, or if correlations were between underprepared and prepared learners. Finally, the
findings of the studies were divided into four themes: the first theme, establishing the benefit of
online over traditional instruction for underprepared students; the second theme, identifying traits
5
Online Student Success
of successful and at-risk online learners; the third theme, best online practices for second
language learners; and the fourth theme, best online practices for remedial students.
Coverage of the Literature
Success and Retention Rates of Online versus Face-to-Face
While most research agrees that retention rates are less likely in online courses, there is
some evidence to suggest that online or hybrid classes can produce equal and even improved
outcomes. Based on a survey of 2,800 colleges and university, just 5% of administrators
reported believing online student outcomes were inferior to face-to-face classes, yet nearly 90%
expressed concerns over retention rates (Allen & Seaman, 2013). In 2009, the US Department of
Education completed a meta-analysis study of the most comprehensive online studies and
concluded that online learners had equally and even better outcomes than traditional face-to-face
students (as cited in Jaggars, 2011). The majority of studies used in this literature review attempt
to address issues in both retention and success.
Two of the studies expressly focusing on developmental students concluded learners in
online classes had better writing outcomes than face-to-face students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Carpenter,
2004). In one mixed-methods study of 113 university ESL writing students, hybrid students
actually surpassed traditional students in writing outcomes according to a t-test of the pre and
post exams (Al-Jarf, 2002). In comparison, a second study using multi-level modeling of
quantitative data of 256 online developmental community college writers tracked higher drop
rates of online students but higher success rates among retained online students (Carpenter,
2004). Given that online writing students are writing more volume due to exercises on written
discussion board forums and blogs, it’s reasonable that these students would make greater gains
in their writing and would therefore be more successful than face-to-face students if they
6
Online Student Success
completed courses. Though most colleges have delayed offering online developmental level
classes (Jaggars, 2001), these studies support online student success of underprepared students.
Characteristics and Traits of Most and Least Successful Online Learners
Seven of the studies attempted to identify characteristics or traits that could identify
which students were most or least likely to be successful in online courses. These included a
combination of factors: ethnicity, age, work, current units, cumulative units, GPA, gender,
technical skills, previous online experience, placement scores, TASK motivation, major, reading
assessment, writing assessment, self-regulation strategies, intrinsic goals, number of degrees,
time since last class (Carpenter, Brown & Hickman, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2001; Fair &
Wickersham, 2012; Kaupp, 2012; Menager-Beeley, 2001; Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007).
Students’ cumulative GPAs, assessment scores, and completed or concurrent units were
indicators for retention and success in a number of study groups (Menager-Beeley, 2001; Fair, &
Wickersham, 2012; Carpenter, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2010). A correlational analysis of
quantitative data on grades in previous English courses revealed a relation between higher grades
and persistence in online classes (Menager-Beeley, 2001). A second correlational analysis of
mixed methods tests showed conflicting responses: in a post course survey, over half the students
of one study reported reading comprehension skills as a critical skill needed for online success;
however, in a correlations analysis of reading skills, no major relation with course grades was
found (Fair & Wickersham, 2012). Two studies examined the influence of previous units
completed and/or current units while enrolled in online classes (Carpenter, 2004; Colorado, &
Eberle, 2010). Full time students were more likely to pass online classes; the strongest indicator
of dropping was with part time students (Carpenter, 2004; Colorado & Eberle, 2010). Multilevel
modeling was used to analyze data collected from student profiles, placement tests, and course
7
Online Student Success
grades, and although there was a correlation between assessment scores and class grades, no
connection was made with assessment and retention (Carpenter, 2004).
Not only did students’ academic backgrounds play a role in outcomes, so did students’
identities. Two studies found a disparity in outcomes when students’ ethnicity was compared.
The Carpenter (2004) study of 256 developmental writing students concluded Caucasian female
students were most likely to pass. A second study, the largest to ever look at online success
characteristics, also concluded that Caucasian students were most successful in online classes
(Kaupp, 2012). This quantitative study analyzed 4.5 million CA community college student
records between 2005-2009; there were three key findings: online Caucasian students were 9%
more likely than Latino students to succeed; there was no achievement gap of online basic skills
students; there was a huge achievement gap between vocational online students (Kaupp, 2012).
The second finding is particularly of interest since it specifically applies to underprepared
students, and it surprisingly finds no achievement gap based on race in pre-collegiate classes but
then does find a gap in college level courses. Even though the CCC system annually reports on
student equity in student success and retention, it currently does not analyze achievement of
specific groups within online education even though it tracks enrollment by race, gender, age,
etc. (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2013). More studies are needed that
specifically analyze success and retention based on student demographics.
Only by understanding where achievement gaps exists in online education can educators
begin to identify reasons for these achievement gaps and address barriers to success (Matthews,
& Lumina Foundation, 2012). In one qualitative study of Hispanic student online outcomes,
faculty attributed the failure of Hispanic students with lacking technical skills, language skills, or
motivation; on the other hand, students cited poor social connections (Kaupp, 2012). By
8
Online Student Success
understanding that Hispanic students place higher value on student-student and student-instructor
contact (Johnson, 2013; Kaupp, 2012), instructional designers can plan for more interactive
collaboration in their online classes. Social connections may actually be one of the key markers
for underprepared students succeeding in online classes.
The role of social networking, and specifically the network students achieve, may in fact
enhance learning and outcomes of online learners; in essence, who you know dictates what you
learn (Baris, & Tosun, 2013; Dawson, 2010; Mongillo & Wilder, 2012). In a quantitative study
of 1,026 online university students, a t-test of Social Networking Analysis (SNA) patterns on
Blackboard discussion boards between high and low performing students uncovered key factors
in students’ success: the highest grades correlated with students with the largest social networks;
high and low performers did not interact; and high performing groups received higher
participation by instructors (Dawson, 2010). This verifies teacher presence plays a vital role in
online classes and it is crucial that instructors make strong connections with all of their online
learners (Hosler, & Arend, 2012; Kupczynski, Ice, Wiesenmayer, & McCluskey, 2010; Rubin, &
Fernandes, 2013). The research clearly shows that students expect and benefit from interaction
with classmates and instructors; creating strong learning communities with varying student levels
is an essential element of instructional design.
Who students are or who they know are just part of the factors related to academic
success; critically important are students’ own attitudes and actions. In multiple studies, students
with the highest task values had the highest persistence and success (Menager-Beeley, 2001;
Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). When students' task values corresponded with coursework, course
satisfaction, success, and completion rose (Menager-Beeley, 2001). In a correlational research
design and regression tests using quantitative data, successful students assessed high in intrinsic
9
Online Student Success
goals, task value, self-efficacy, cognitive strategy use, and self-regulation (Yukselturk & Bulut,
2007). In a READI assessment, no connections were found between personal attributes and
course grades; nevertheless, students related their time management as the most important factor
to affect their grades (Yukselturk & Bulut, 2007). Though the studies did not compare these
factors between face-to-face and online groups, it likely the findings would be the same with
both groups.
Best Online Practices for English as a Second Language Learners
The role of instructional design plays a key part in contributing to strengthening
outcomes of online students. Three studies focused on instructional design elements and English
as a Second Language (ESL) students (Al-Jarf, 2002; Simpson, 2006; Zha, Kelly, Park, &
Fitzgeral, 2006). In the first study, university level ESL traditional and hybrid writing students
were compared using a qualitative analysis of pre and post writing tests; because the hybrid
students had access to more online resources, activities, and overall writing practice, they
improved more (Al-Jarf, 2002). In a second study of technologically enhanced traditional
elementary classes, CMS discussion posts were analyzed with a t-test to determine progress in
communicative competence; the findings indicated that low level students modeled higher level
student writing and showed significant improvements (Zha, Kelly, Park, & Fitzgeral, 2006). The
third study focused on the use of asynchronous lectures online; a t-test of 160 university students
[half native speakers and half second language learners] concluded that ESL students were
significantly more likely to opt for asynchronous over live lectures (Simpson, 2006). Over this
three-semester study, the addition of the optional asynchronous lectures was credited for a 14%
improvement in retention and 5% grade elevation. While the study did not distinguish improved
10
Online Student Success
success rates between native or non-native speakers, overall, students using the asynchronous
lectures outperformed students who only attended live lectures (Simpson, 2006).
Best Online Practices for Remedial Students
The roles of student-student interaction and entertainment proved to be motivation for
success and persistence of remedial students (Mongillo & Wilder, 2012; Stewart & Scappaticci,
2005). A qualitative study of at-risk college freshman enrolled in a pre-collegiate reading course
was compared for effect sizes; the ability for the online activities to feel game-like and the
awareness of classmates as their audience in the discussion forum were reported as motivators
(Mongillo & Wilder, 2012). This study was based on a social constructivists perspective of
learning grounded in the idea that learning occurs in social contexts. Social impact on student
persistence was reinforced in a second study of conditionally accepted university freshman
attending a Summer Bridge program; the mixed methods study used effect sizes to analyze
persistence rates between the face-to-face control group and the online pilot group (Stewart &
Scappaticci, 2005). Intriguing that both studies found that the online students reported more
positive responses to the social interaction online than in face-to-face sessions (Mongillo &
Wilder, 2012; Stewart & Scappaticci, 2005). As social media and CMS technologies have
improved our ability to interact through web 2.0 and 3.0 applications, perhaps these
improvements will be reflected in success and retention rates in online education.
Synthesis
Overall, online learning has the potential to be an academically sound option for
underprepared students. Before online education can truly become a viable option for improved
college access and attainment of degrees, higher education institutions will need to overcome
low completion and persistence rates (Allen & Seaman, 2014; California Community Colleges
11
Online Student Success
Chancellor’s Office, 2013; Sturgis, 2012). Colleges that demonstrate the greatest gains in
helping students achieve the dream of graduating share three key features: an engagement of all
stakeholders [students, faculty, staff, and administrators], decision making based on data driven
evidence, and a scaled plan for change (Public, & Achieving the Dream, 2012). If academies can
establish policies that prioritize these key points, improved online courses and programs will
present a strong alternative to traditional classes.
Much of the literature supports online success, but there are very few resources that
explicitly address underprepared online students and more research is needed (Jaggars, &
Columbia University, 2011). It’s noteworthy that most of the studies in this review were of
hybrid classes rather than fully online. Given that research has shown hybrid classes to be more
effective than fully online classes (Meydanlioglu & Arikan, 2014), it can not be assumed that
research on fully online classes would produce as favorable outcomes. Further research is
needed on fully online developmental classes; based on current research, hybrid classes appear to
be the most credible choice. Furthermore, none of the studies investigated whether online
students were equally prepared and as successful in more advanced courses of the same
discipline; additional research is needed in this area as well.
Successful completion of courses and matriculation through college programs toward
degree completion are crucial issues for underprepared students (Barnett, Bork, Mayer, Pretlow,
Wathington, Weiss, & National Center for Postsecondary Research, 2012). If higher education
is to fulfill President Obama’s goals of making college more attainable, institutions must ensure
that their instructional designers are creating online courses that meet the needs of all types of
students. Stellar online courses are dependent on institutional support of technical training and
technical assistance (Taylor, & Holley, 2009; Watson, Gemin, & International Association for K-
12
Online Student Success
12 Online, 2009), robust professional development in online education (Herman, 2012, Storandt,
Dossin, & Lacher, 2012) and specialized evaluation of online instruction (Hosie, & Schibeci,
2005; International Association for K-12 Online, 2011). It is not enough to simply open access
to colleges and universities through mass offerings in online programs, schools have a
responsibility to establish policies that ensure quality online programs that offer students a sound
opportunity for degree completion.
13
Online Student Success
References
Al-Jarf, R. S. (2002, June). Effect of online learning on struggling ESL college writers. Paper
presented at National Educational Computing Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014, Jan.). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United
States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
Baris, M. F., & Tosun, N. (2013). Can social networks and e-portfolio be used together for
enhancing learning effects and attitudes?. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology - TOJET, 12(2), 51-62.
Barnett, E, Bork, R., Mayer, A., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H., Weiss, M., & National Center for
Postsecondary Research. (2012). Bridging the gap: An impact study of eight
developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. NCPR Brief. National Center for
Postsecondary Research.
Baxter, J. (2012). Who am I and what keeps me going? Profiling the distance learning student in
higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4),
107-129.
Bettinger, E., & Long, B. (2009). Addressing the needs of underprepared students in higher
education: Does college remediation work? Journal of Human Resources, University of
Wisconsin Press, 44(3).
Britto, M., & Rush, S. (2013). Developing and Implementing Comprehensive Student Support
Services for Online Students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 29-42.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Distance education report.
Retrieved from:
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/reportsTB/REPORT_DistanceEduc
14
Online Student Success
ation2013_090313.pdf
Carpenter, T., Brown, W., & Hickman, R. (2004). Influences of online delivery on
developmental writing outcomes. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(1), 14-16, 18,
35.
Colorado, J., & Eberle, J. (2010). Student demographics and success in online learning
environments. Emporia State Research Studies, 46(1), 4-10.
Daiek, D., Dixon, S., & Talbert, L. (2012). At issue: Developmental education and the success of
our community college students. Community College Enterprise, 18(1), 37-40.
Dawson, S. (2010). 'Seeing' the learning community: An exploration of the development of a
resource for monitoring online student networking. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(5), 736-752.
Fair, B., & Wickersham, L. (2012). The READI assessment as a possible predictor of student
success in online communication courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13(2),
115-124.
Harrell, I. (2008). Increasing the Success of Online Students. Inquiry, 13(1), 36-44.
Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional
Development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 16(5), 87-106.
Hosie, P., & Schibeci, R. (2005). Checklist and context-bound evaluations of online learning in
higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 881-895.
Hosler, K., & Arend, B. (2012). The importance of course design, feedback, and facilitation:
student perceptions of the relationship between teaching presence and cognitive presence.
Educational Media International, 49(3), 217-229.
15
Online Student Success
International Association for K-12 Online, L. (2011). National standards for quality online
courses: Version 2. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Jaggars, S., & Columbia University, C. C. (2011). Online Learning: Does It Help Low-Income
and Underprepared Students? CCRC Working Paper, 26. Assessment of Evidence Series.
Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Johnson, J. (2013, Sept.). The Use of E-Learning Tools for Improving Hispanic Students'
Academic Performance. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3).
Kaupp, R. (2012). Online penalty: The impact of online instruction on the Latino-White
achievement gap. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 19(2), 8-16.
Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Wiesenmayer, R., & McCluskey, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the
relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal
of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 23-43.
Matthews, D., & Lumina Foundation. (2012). A Stronger Nation through higher education: How
and why Americans must achieve a big goal for college attainment. A Special Report from
Lumina Foundation. Lumina Foundation for Education.
Menager-Beeley, R. (2001). Student success in web based distance learning: Measuring
motivation to identify at risk students and improve retention in online classes. Paper
presented at Webnet 2001 Symposium, Orlando, Florida.
Meydanlioglu, A., & Arikan, F. (2014). Effect of hybrid learning in higher education.
International Journal of Social, Education, Economics and Management Engineering,
8(5).
Mongillo, G., & Wilder, H. (2012). An Examination of At-Risk College Freshmen's Expository
Literacy Skills Using Interactive Online Writing Activities. Journal of College Reading
16
Online Student Success
and Learning, 42(2), 27-50.
NCTE Beliefs about the Teaching of Writing. (n.d.). The National Council of Teachers of
English. Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/governance/writing
Public, A., & Achieving the Dream, I. (2012). Building institutional capacity for data-informed
decision making. Cutting Edge Series. 3. Public Agenda.
Rubin, B., & Fernandes, R. (2013). The teacher as leader: Effect of teaching behaviors on class
community and agreement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 14(5), 1-26.
Simpson, N. (2006). Asynchronous access to conventional course delivery: A pilot project.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 527-537.
Simpson, O. (2013). Student retention in distance education: Are we failing our students?. Open
Learning, 28(2), 105-119.
SRI International, M. C. (2002). California's teaching force: Key Issues and Trends, 2002.
Stewart, T., & Scappaticci, L. (2005). Making the connection: A hybrid distance learning
program for underprepared college students. Online Submission.
Storandt, B. C., Dossin, L. C., & Lacher, A. P. (2012). Toward an understanding of what works
in professional development for online instructors: The case of PBS Teacherline. Journal
of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 121-162.
Sturgis, I. (2012, Mar.). The online frontier. Issues in Higher Education, 29(3), 16-19.
Taylor, B., & Holley, K. (2009). Providing academic and support services to students enrolled in
online degree programs. College Student Affairs Journal, 28(1), 81-102.
17
Online Student Success
Watson, J., Gemin, B., & International Association for K-12 Online, L. (2009). Policy and
funding frameworks for online learning. Promising practices in online learning.
International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2007). Predictors for student success in an online course. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).
Zha, S., Kelly, P., Park, M. K., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). An Investigation of communicative
competence of ESL students using electronic discussion boards. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education (International Society For Technology In Education), 38(3), 349-
367.
18